Drake’s ongoing appeal in the “Not Like Us” lawsuit has raised concerns among legal scholars. In a brief filed over the weekend, a group of Yale law professors slammed the rapper’s bid to revive his case against Lamar, arguing that the rapper has no grounds to sue Universal music Group (UMG) because he willfully consented to the slanging match.”Consent is an absolute defense to defamation,” say Yale scholars.

“Suppose a self-assured boxer challenges the world champion to a prize fight, is knocked out on live television, and, with bruised ego and body, files a lawsuit for battery,” the scholars wrote. “That lawsuit would fail at the outset for a simple but important reason: the challenger consented to the fight, and consent is a classic defense to an intentional tort.” According to the professors, Drake only resorted to legal recourse because he lost in the court of public opinion. “Having lost in that forum, Drake turned to another,” they say.

Drake’s Defamation Case Against UMG Dismissed Back In October 2025

In October 2025, a federal judge dismissed Drake’s defamation case against UMG. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that Lamar’s controversial lyrics—where he accused Toronto rapper of being a “certified pedophile”—were protected under the First Amendment. “The issue in this case is whether ‘Not Like Us’ can reasonably be understood to convey as a factual matter that Drake is a pedophile or that he has engaged in sexual relations with minors,” Judge Vargas wrote. “In light of the overall context in which the statements in the recording were made, the court holds that it cannot.”

Vargas noted that in a “broader context,” back and forth with Lamar and Drake of the song was “a heated rap battle, with incendiary language and offensive accusations hurled by both participants.” A month later, Drake filed an appeal in the lower court, where he called Vargas’ ruling an “unprecedented” and “categorical rule” that says “statements in rap diss tracks” don’t have to be “statements of fact.” He also claimed that Universal music Group’s persistent marketing of the song “misled consumers.”